Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Wm mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Replies: 8   Last Post: Feb 7, 2014 2:54 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WM mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Posted: Feb 6, 2014 4:19 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <6b5dd66a-3a7b-42da-a79d-c6e0187d24c3@googlegroups.com>,
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2014 00:19:51 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> > The properties of a path defined by a
> > supposed bijection can be argued about perfectly well.


> If the path can be named.

WM has this thing about having to name everything. Nut he's SOL because
in real mathematics there are more things than names.
For example. In a Complete Infinite Binary Tree ther are more paths than
WM can find names for them.


> > What exactly is the "contrary"?
> The contrary is that Cantor's argument exclusively is based upon digits at
> finite positions.


On the contrary, Cantor's argument was not about digits at all but about
infinite strings of the letters 'm' and 'w'.



> A rational-complete list covers all these positions.

Claimed but not proved
and not provable anywhere outside of WMytheology,


> And
> there are no digits at infinite positions


But there can be digits at infinitely many different finite postions,
which scuttles WM's arguments entirely.

> > > That's what we call an antinomy. It is a well-known paradox
> > >that matheologians cannot see the other side.

> > Well it would be a problem except that the contrary is not true.

> But it is true. A rationals-complete list contains all digit sequences that
> can be subject to the diagonal argument


Nonsense!
The finitely defined real number r = Sum_(n in |N) 1/2^(n!), in base 2,
is not anywhere in WM's "rationals-complete list" or in his
pseudo-binary tree, but does represent a path in any Complete Infinite
Binary Tree outside of WMytheology. .
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.